Collaborative Learning Techniques, Student Learning Outcomes, and Equal Workload Within Groups in Different Teaching Modalities
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 2020, Volume 32, Number 2, 293-304 http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/ ISSN 1812-9129 Collaborative Learning Techniques, Student Learning Outcomes, and Equal Workload within Groups in Different Teaching Modalities Megumi Kuwabara, Susan D. Einbinder, Rui Sun, and Roya Azizi California State University Dominguez Hills A Faculty Learning Community comprised of four faculty members evaluated their work of implementing collaborative learning techniques (CoLTs) into their graduate and undergraduate courses that included different teaching modalities (traditional classroom, hybrid, and online). Two research questions were examined: a) Did students perceive that the implementation of CoLTs facilitated their mastery of course-specific student learning outcomes?, and b) Did students perceive that their group members worked equally? A total of 133 students participated in this study by filling out a survey asking for their evaluation of mastery of student learning outcomes and peer evaluation of group members' collaborative effort. Results show that the implementation of CoLTs facilitated students’ perception that they mastered the course-specific learning outcomes and that the workload was equally distributed among their group members. The contributions of current work and the potential use of the student survey used in this study are discussed. Collaborative learning is a form of group learning 2014; Kilgo, Sheets & Pascarella, 2015; Nelson, 1994), during which two or more students in a class work enhanced student persistence in math courses after together and share workload equitably to complete failure (Lan & Repman, 1995), increased student’s assignments that are intentionally created to meet the ability to transfer knowledge gained in one class to student learning outcomes of the class (Barkley, Major, another (Loes & Pascarella, 2017; Wright, Millar, & Cross, 2014). Collaborative learning is rooted in two Kosciuk, & Penberthy, 1998), and deepened the level of learning theories: one is social constructivism by learning (Vogt & Skop, 2017). In addition, a study Vygotsky (1978) stating that knowledge is constructed found that collaborative learning generated higher by socially interacting with other individuals; another is benefits for students of color and students with the observational learning theory by Bandura (1977) educational challenges (Loes & Pascarella, 2017). stating that knowledge is gained by imitating and The benefits of CoLTs are not only academic but modeling other individuals. By implementing also extended to social and psychological aspects. For collaborative learning, instructors engage three of the example, Johnson, Johnson, and Smith (2014) showed seven principles for good education practices suggested that the implementation of CoLTs facilitated liking by Chickering and Gamson (1987): encouraging student- among peers in the class, increased psychological faculty contact, facilitating cooperation and learning adjustment (e.g., self-efficacy and self-esteem), and among students, and active learning. Implementing better attitudes toward the university and learning. Laal collaborative learning in the classroom puts an instructor and Ghodsi (2012) showed that collaborative learning in a position of a facilitator and a guide of learning rather increased the awareness of diversity, reduced anxiety, than a deliverer of knowledge, and it put students in and increased positive attitudes toward instructors. charge of their learning (Flannery, 1994). While Courses with collaborative learning also facilitated instructors in higher education have utilized student students’ communication skills, problem-solving skills, collaboration in classes, collaborative learning innovative or creative thinking, and better working with techniques (CoLTs) represent planned and intentional their team in engineering courses compared with the methods to facilitate collaboration in the class. The traditional courses (Terenzini, Cabrera, Colbeck, CoLTs range from simple (e.g., think-pair-share) to Parente, & Bjorklund, 2001). complex (e.g., jigsaw) techniques, but all techniques The majority of the studies on the effectiveness of must be individualized and customized to suit the CoLTs focused on STEM courses and traditional contents taught in the class (Barkley et al., 2014). graduate or undergraduate courses. It is not clear Implementing CoLTs in college and university whether the effectiveness of CoLTs can be expanded to courses has consistently been shown to enhance different teaching modalities (traditional classrooms, learning. For example, a meta-analysis conducted by hybrid, and online) and different course levels Springer, Stanne, and Donovan (1999) showed that (undergraduate- and graduate-level courses). Therefore, STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) in this study we intend to fill in the research gap by classes in undergraduate-level courses improved examining whether the implementation of CoLTs student exam grades. Other studies have shown that facilitated students’ perception of mastery of student CoLTs improved student’s critical thinking skills and learning outcomes in courses of different modalities engagement in classes (Clem, Mennicke & Beasley, and at different levels. Kuwabara, Einbinder, Sun, and Azizi Collaborative Learning Techniques 294 Table 1 Course Chosen for Evaluation by Level, Modality/Number of Sections, and Response Rate Response Rate (No. of responses/ Course Level Modality/sections No. of enrollment) Undergrad 1 Undergraduate Traditional - 2 98% (59/60) Undergrad 2 Undergraduate Online -1 93% (26/28) Grad 1 Graduate Hybrid - 1 81% (13/16) Grad 2 Graduate Traditional - 2 80% (35/44) Table 2 Sample Distribution by Sex, per Class and Percentage of the Total Sample (n=133) Undergrad 1 Undergrad 2 Grad 1 Grad 2 Total N % N % N % N % N % Female 58 44 18 14 9 7 30 23 115 86 Male 1 1 8 6 4 3 5 4 18 14 Total 59 44 26 20 13 10 35 26 133 100 Note: percentage differences are due to rounding. Table 3 Sample Distribution by Race/Ethnicity, per Class and Percentage of the Total Sample (n=133) Undergrad Undergrad 1 2 Grad 1 Grad 2 Total No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % African Americans/non- 3 2 2 2 6 5 7 5 18 14 Hispanic African 7 5 2 2 2 2 3 2 14 11 American/Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander 3 2 4 3 0 0 4 3 11 8 Caucasian/Non-Hispanic 2 2 5 4 2 2 4 3 13 10 Caucasian/Hispanic 29 22 11 8 1 1 15 11 56 43 Other 15 11 2 2 2 2 2 2 21 16 Total 59 44 26 20 13 10 35 26 133 100 Furthermore, we investigated a part of the definition of over three consecutive semesters in a campus-sponsored, collaborative learning, “sharing workload equitably,” by interdisciplinary Faculty Learning Community (FLC). asking students whether they thought themselves and their The four faculty incorporated CoLTs into their classroom peers in their groups contributed equally to the work during instruction and assessed its effectiveness using a student the CoLTs implemented activities. Based on our best survey in the fall semester of 2017. knowledge, this part of the definition of collaborative learning has not been studied extensively. We found a study Participants mentioning that despite the benefits of collaboration in the classrooms, many students complained about the unequal Table 1 contains details about the four courses workload of group members to complete the collaborative chosen for this study, which included two graduate and activity (Chang & Brickman, 2018). Therefore, our study two undergraduate courses. makes another contribution to the literature about the equal One course was an asynchronous online course, workload aspect of collaborative learning. another was a hybrid, and the remaining two were offered in a traditional classroom setting. Methods A total of 148 students were enrolled in these courses that utilized CoLTs. At the end of the fall 2017 semester, Three full-time and one part-time faculty at an urban, 133 students completed the survey, resulting in a response public university in Southern California, worked together rate of 90 percent overall, with both graduate classes Kuwabara, Einbinder, Sun, and Azizi Collaborative Learning Techniques 295 generating lower response rates of 81 and 80 percent, facilitating the mastery of student learning outcomes based respectively, while both undergraduate classes generated on students’ perceptions. response rates of 93 and 98 percent, respectively. Undergraduate students comprised 64 percent of the Procedure sample, and 86 percent were female, as shown in Table 2. Table 3 shows the race/ethnicity of the sample by The four faculty members who are co-authors of class. This distribution mirrors the diverse student this study originally began collaborating in a one- population of the university. semester FLC convened in spring 2017 after each member responded to a request to participate by the Materials university’s Faculty Development Center. During that period, each faculty member designed an individualized The student survey designed for this study CoLT in his or her respective class. We requested, and contained three sections (see Appendix A). The first were granted permission, to continue our work together section solicited the student’s signature indicating in Fall 2017, during which time we implemented one or whether or not the data could be used in this study (the more CoLTs, which are listed in Appendix B, and the informed consent text was included on the assignment survey for evaluation and assessment of CoLTs were